> Caching solves only the performance problem, which in my mind is the least compelling reason to go for static site. One the other hand there are compelling r

> Caching solves only the performance problem, which in my mind is the least compelling reason to go for static site. One the other hand there are compelling reasons for not going with a static site as well. Try getting non-technical users to write the markup for their posts by hand without a WYSIWYG editor. Or try to integrate features like comments with a static site without using a third-party service. > If your wp-admin routes are still accessible to the public internet, then you are still at risk for broken plugins causing a hack. You have to both cache all static directories and firewall the actual server if you want to avoid being hacked by one of the thousands of scripts that scans every IP address for WordPress plugin vulnerabilities. That's a risk you have with every internet facing software. Yes, static sites are great, because they greatly reduce the attack surface, but there are reasons why not every website is a statically generated site. As the comment which lead to that thread already mentioned it's quite easy to reduce the risk by keeping the number of plugins as small as possible. I run several websites powered by Wordpress since more than 15 years and so far didn't have any security incident with them.